News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law.

Re:Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law by dragonwriter on Friday September 10, 2021 @06:59PM (#28487815)
Abbot admitting that the purpose of the law is to force unwilling private entities to promote conservative viewpoints is likely to be front and center in the ruling striking it down as an overt free speech violation. That's the part you are supposed to at least make opponents catch you saying privately to a friendly audience to prove their point...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law by leggomuhgreggo on Saturday September 11, 2021 @04:05AM (#28490248)
You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored?

I think there are a number of Palestinian journalist, who'd disagree

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law by dragonwriter on Saturday September 11, 2021 @06:33AM (#28490815)
> You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored?

No, I think the fact that the law was passed (and that Abbot openly admitted it, which makes it much easier to prove) to advance a particular political viewpoint means that (independent of whether it might be framed neutrally or have neutral effect) it is Constitutionally impermissible, since either of an improper purpose, improper mechanism, or improper effect can make a law unconstitutional.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law by propogandist on Saturday September 11, 2021 @11:54AM (#28492966)
the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint.

The recent events, where conservative voices were targeted by big tech, was the catalyst for the law, but that doesn't make it illegal.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law by dragonwriter on Saturday September 11, 2021 @12:00PM (#28493019)
> the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint.

You seem to be assuming a facially neutral law with a viewpoint specific purpose is Constitutional. It is not.

Usually, its harder to prove an improper purpose for a facially-neutral law, but then usually the people passing and signing a law with an improper purpose don't just public announce the viewpoint they are seeking to advance.

[ Parent | on HN ]